High altitude sports and entertainment: Select case studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High altitude sports are generally most entertaining and safe for recreational tourists/athletes, but they should be aware of their individual risks. It is a well-known fact that there is less oxygen at higher elevation. When looking at the effective oxygen content of air at altitude compared to sea level, there is 15% less oxygen at 5,000 feet (elevation of Denver), 26% less oxygen at 8,000 feet (elevation of Aspen), and 41% less oxygen at 14,000 feet (elevation of the Colorado 14ers)! [ ] So high altitudes make it harder to breath. The benefits of training at such high altitudes include: Get better endurance due to increased red blood cell count; perform better at high and low altitudes; because you get to train in places which are most scenic and best for adventure sports and entertainment; etc. Select case studies, to get more details about high altitude sports and entertainment at a global level, include: Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (KSE), USA; Altitude Sports, USA; Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC), Canada; and True North Sports and Entertainment Limited (TNSE), Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".